Climategate II – will the liars never learn?

Now it’s official.

There is no truth in the rumour that humanity is influencing the climate in any measurable way. The proof of that is that our world-leading climatologists don’t believe it.

They only say so in public, the dirty deceivers. Filthy liars, from Britain to America to New Zealand and even our own NIWA.

This deception has been exposed once already, yet they have persisted and built it up all over again. Calling them imbeciles gives honest morons a bad name. Will they never learn that misleading their electorate is not the way to prosper?



Gratifying that the MSM are responding right away. Richard Black, at the BBC, takes a laid-back view, opting to invent exculpatory explanations for some of the incriminating-sounding statements.

Still, he essays some concern, too, suggesting: “UEA’s Prof Phil Jones may find some more phrases he wishes he hadn’t written.”

A Google search for “Climategate II” (with quote marks) already returns over 97,000 hits.

Yes, it’s going to be entertaining.

Tallbloke’s Talkshop

Jo Nova

James Delingpole

Watts Up With That

Visits: 494

42 Thoughts on “Climategate II – will the liars never learn?

  1. Mike Jowsey on 23/11/2011 at 12:36 pm said:

    Yeehah!!! I’m off to the supermarket to stock up on popcorn. This is fun.

  2. Andy on 23/11/2011 at 12:49 pm said:

    The file can be downloaded using this bit torrent link

  3. Alexander K on 23/11/2011 at 1:13 pm said:

    Those that followed the original Climategate saga have been hoping that the leaker would do this. Makes me curious about how the flutterings and mutterings in the dovecotes of power and influence such as the various Royal Societies, august scientific bodies, etc are sounding. And I am grinning, just a little, but not incredibly hopeful the clueless MSM will pick up on it anytine soon.

  4. Andy on 23/11/2011 at 1:21 pm said:

    The official mouthpiece of the RSNZ – the Science Media Centre, is in damage limitation mode

    • Alexander K on 23/11/2011 at 1:46 pm said:

      Andy, my grin has just widened – the thought of the NZRS casting Bob Ward in the role of an expert on anything apart from rapid typing is illuminating indeed.

  5. Mike Jowsey on 23/11/2011 at 1:41 pm said:


    date: Mon, 8 Dec 2008 19:49:18 -0000 (GMT)
    from: “Tim Osborn”
    subject: RE: FW: FOI_08-50 ; EIR_08-01
    to: “Jones Philip Prof”

    Hi Phil!

    re. your email to Dave Palmer [which he copied in his response to you and
    cc’d to me, Keith & Michael McGarvie, and which has hence already been
    multiply copied within the UEA system, and therefore will probably exist
    for a number of months and possibly years, and could be released under FOI
    if a request is made for it during that time!]… I assume that you didn’t
    delete any emails that David Holland has requested (because that would be
    illegal) but that instead his request merely prompted you to do a spring
    clean of various other emails that hadn’t been requested, as part of your
    regular routine of deleting old emails. If that is what you meant, then
    it might be a good idea to clarify your previous email to Dave Palmer, to
    avoid it being misunderstood.

    The way things seem to be going, I think it best if we discuss all FOI,
    EIR, Data Protection requests in person wherever possible, rather than via
    email. It’s such a shame that the skeptics’ vexatious use of this
    legislation may prevent us from using such an efficient modern technology
    as email, but it seems that if we want to have confidential discussions
    then we may need to avoid it.

    I shall delete this email and those related to it as part of my regular
    routine of deleting old emails!



  6. Andy on 23/11/2011 at 3:55 pm said:

    I’ve now got a copy of which you can get from here

    but let me know if you want a copy from me

  7. Andy on 23/11/2011 at 4:01 pm said:

    date: Tue, 22 Apr 2003 22:28:22 +1200
    from: j.salinger@xxxx
    subject: RE: Recent climate sceptic research and the journal Climate
    to: “Michael E. Mann” , xxx, m.hulme@xxx, Barrie.Pittock@xxx, mann@xxx, Phil Jones

    Dear All

    Good to see some action – and I applaud your initiatives. As a
    backgrounder I have attached various pieces that have been in the
    NZ Herald which have either involved Chris de Freitas – or are his
    ‘opinions’. He publishes as ‘associate professor in geography’. The
    NZ Herald is NZ’s largest daily metropolitan newspaper.

    These will show you exactly where he is coming from – and our
    attempts locally in New Zealand to rebut these.

    Any actions you do that produce results would be greatly
    appreciated here, and I will ensure that the appropriate sources get
    to know!

    Look forward to updates.

    Regards to all



    • Mike Jowsey on 23/11/2011 at 5:41 pm said:

      Pure activism – no science to see here, folks – move along.

  8. Andy on 23/11/2011 at 7:06 pm said:

    Andrew Bolt reports on the CSIRO connections in the emails
    . The results as you present them suggest that many areas will have precipitation changes (particularly) which are small compared to natural variability, and therefore it does not matter.


    I would be very concerned if the material comes out under WWF auspices
    in a way that can be interpreted as saying that “even a
    greenie group like WWF” thinks large areas of the world will have negligible climate change

  9. Andy on 23/11/2011 at 8:08 pm said:

    Motl has some links where to download the files, plus a few choice quotes

  10. Australis on 24/11/2011 at 1:25 am said:

    It’s interesting that the CSIRO guy who wrote the email criticised by Andrew Bolt, Barrie Pittock, is also an addressee of Jim Salinger’s email calling for fire and brimstone to rain down on Chris De Freitas.

    Pittock is very critical of Mike Hulme for resorting to ‘scientific’ error criteria, when the object is to make policy makers concerned. If science is the answer, it must have been the wrong question, he reckons.

    But Jim apparently sees Hulme as a ‘Team’ member on the GetDeFreitas project.

  11. Andy on 24/11/2011 at 6:30 am said:

    A searchable database of the 2011 emails is now available here:

  12. bulaman on 24/11/2011 at 8:52 am said:

    This is more important .

    The collapse of the indulgence market starves the faceless unelected bureaucrats and shines sunlight on the uselessness of the whole sorry saga.

    • Mike Jowsey on 24/11/2011 at 1:07 pm said:

      Thanks for the link, bulaman. I wonder what Nick Smith would have to say about this:

      LONDON, Nov 18 (Reuters) – European Union carbon prices could shed some 70 percent from current levels, as the bloc struggles with a mounting debt crisis and a glut of supply in the carbon market is unlikely to disappear until 2025, analysts at UBS said.

      The investment bank also said the EU emissions trading scheme (ETS), the 27-nation bloc’s main policy tool to fight global warming, “isn’t working” because carbon prices are “already too low to have any significant environmental impact.”

      “We expect the recent carbon-price decline to escalate into a ‘crash’ as carbon market supply should double over the coming months,” UBS analysts wrote in a Thursday statement to clients.

  13. good post… let the sun shine on all the wee cockroaches in power and let them scurry away away away

  14. bulaman on 24/11/2011 at 3:46 pm said:

    The politician’s maintain their delusions in the UK

    Some one should remind them of the phrase “Arab Spring” translated to the English Landscape.

    • Andy on 24/11/2011 at 4:14 pm said:

      Energy prices will increase but overall a family will pay less because they will use 1/3 less electricity, says energy minister Chris Huhne.

      Delusional fool.

  15. PeterM on 25/11/2011 at 6:29 am said:

    Follow the money! The World Bank involvement is interesting.

    At home labour/greens want a stronger ETS lots of trees and no asset sales. Oh really!

    • Richard C (NZ) on 25/11/2011 at 9:19 am said:

      I’m all for “lots of trees” for erosion control, rainfall, animal shelter, fuel, building material, etc but not a phony mechanism to extract finance from the masses with which to plant them.

      Last night I watched the German BBC equivalent DWTW’s “Global 3000” on Central TV. The Germans are spreading the gospel of climate change all over the world and winning proselytes in the underdeveloped regions. Global 3000 reports projects that show how wonderfully green the Germans are (but doesn’t mention their partly coal driven industrial base – their car ads are on another programme) and highlights projects that they have been instrumental in, especially internationally. The whole presentation reflects the not-so-latent propensity of German desire for global domination one way or another and climate change is a conveniently stealthy vehicle for them to gain a foothold in other countries.

      The programme last night included a report of a reforestation project being carried out in a large swathe of ex Kenya farm land that had been locked up as a national park and reforested with the proceeds of carbon credits with the benefit that rains and wild animals have returned. Well duh, if you don’t leave some plantations on farmland and replant seedlings to replace wood used for fuel then you will create an arid wasteland just like the Kenyan farmers did.and if you don’t set aside wilderness areas there will be no wild animals. There was an attendant report of new Chinese wealth driven (also partly coal based) ivory poaching in the forest but nuther story.

      It got interesting because the problem was that the displaced farmers still needed to earn a living. That’s where the Germans came into the picture. About a third of the revenue from carbon credits was diverted to “industrialize” the displaced villages with German help where for example, clothes manufacturing enterprises were set up to supply the, you guessed it, German retail market.

      Now then, isn’t German “greenness” and redistributed fossil fuel based wealth wonderful? And I never would have known if I hadn’t watched their propaganda mouthpiece – thanks DWTV.

      Aside, the British Colonials did a bit of deforestation that we don’t hear much about (along with ethnic cleansing e.g. Tazzie). Much of the Kauri taken out of NZ ended up as shoring in British coal pits (there’s that wealth driver again) from what I can gather but I doubt that even one replacement seed was planted by them and with never any recompense from the “green” Prince’s Crown. And about that gold….

  16. Andy on 25/11/2011 at 7:00 am said:

    Delingpole has a good summary of some emails from Phil Jones, who it appears is “inept” at using Excel for plotting temperature data.

    • Richard C (NZ) on 25/11/2011 at 9:40 am said:

      I think it’s the trend function in particular that he confessed to be inept with.

      Although I’m sure I recall that he was recently able to extract a statistically significant rising trend over the last 15 years or so by ending the series at the last El Nino. So he must have developed a reasonable grasp of the function since.

      Possibly his Excel skill level has increased since his widely disseminated Climategate I admission.

  17. I have been searching the emails for New Zealand related content, and just posted this on my site.

    The email is from Jim Salinger. In the email, he proposes that journal editors write to the dean of University of Auckland with a clear intention to try to get a skeptic, de Freitas, sacked from the university. In another email, Michael Mann approves of the action……

    Shocking stuff!

  18. Sorry, I forgot to mention. I have sent an email to the NZ Herald, challenging them to report on it…

  19. I have updated the story and pulled the emails into a narrative. First half is now available here:

    Hope it makes a better read…..

    • Ron on 27/11/2011 at 5:07 pm said:

      Many thanks for your excellent account revealing the Team’s despicable behaviour. I hope it achieves wider attention. Chris de Freitas also deserves recognition for maintaining integrity and standing firm in the face of the disgraceful attacks.

    • Thanks Ron. I have just been informed by Anthony Watts that he has posted on the story. I took a look at my site stats, and they are now rocketing, so the story will get some coverage. I have also had a comment from Steve McIntyre who says he is planning to do some more work on the story.

      However, as a minor blogger, I am handing over the reins to those who can generate a bigger impact with the story. However, when I received Steve’s comment, I was working on the 2nd half of the story. I have published as far as I had got, and it may be interesting until Steve’s (undoubtedly better informed) version comes out. The link is below:

      In short, the story is too big for a minor blog, and would have a better impact in one of the major blogs. At least I have made a small contribution…

    • Andy on 28/11/2011 at 3:52 pm said:

      Good work. Steven Mosher also posted a link to your blog on Facebook, so expect more traffic!

      By the way, I think you are being too humble here. Every blogger started as a “minor blogger”.

    • Yes, well done, my friend!

    • Andy on 01/12/2011 at 9:41 am said:

      Looks like Hot Topic are on your case.
      [They sure are:   – RT]

    • Richard C (NZ) on 01/12/2011 at 11:17 am said:

      I’ve put a note under Mark’s latest “More Shabby Behaviour” post in case he’s not subscribed to comments here.

    • And somebody has now posted this link in the comments section of the 2nd of the posts. However, I am not sure anyone will be convinced with this further attempt at smearing in the face of what the emails actually say. It might just help bring some more traffic to the post (and some of those arrivals will not have been exposed to skeptic argument), which is a good thing.

    • Andy on 01/12/2011 at 1:50 pm said:

      @NZClimate. You won’t change any minds at “Hot Topic”. You have as much chance of converting a Muslim to Catholicism.

    • Andy on 06/12/2011 at 7:27 am said:

      Your traffic should be going through the roof
      Delingpole just linked to you

  20. Richard C (NZ) on 01/12/2011 at 8:06 am said:

    Fudge for Dummies.

    ClimateGate FOIA grepper! – Email 636

    Solution 1: fudge the issue. Just accept that we are Fast-trackers and can therefore get away with anything.
    [Hat tip: M. Hulme]

    Email 5175-Tom Wigley – 2004

    In any simple global formula, there should be at least two clearly identifiable sources of uncertainty. One is the sensitivity (d(melt)/dT) and the other is the total available ice. In the TAR, the latter never comes into it in their analysis (i.e., the ‘derivation’ of the GSIC formula) — but my point is that it *does* come in by accident due to the quadratic fudge factor. The total volume range is 5-32cm, which is, at the very least, inconsistent with other material in the chapter (see below). 5cm is clearly utterly ridiculous.

    Email 5054, Colin Harpham, UEA, 2007

    I will press on with trying to work out why the temperature needs a ‘fudge factor’ along with the poorer modelling for winter.

    Email 1461, Milind Kandlikar, 2004

    With GCMs the issue is different. Tuning may be a way to fudge the physics. For example, understanding of clouds or aerosols is far from complete – so (ideally) researchers build the “best” model they can within the constraints of physical understanding and computational capacity. Then they tweak parameters to provide a good approximation to observations. It is this context that all the talk about “detuning” is confusing. How does one speak of “detuning” using the same physical models as before? A “detuned” model merely uses a different set of parameters that match observations – it not hard to find multiple combinations of parameters that give the similar model outputs (in complex models with many parameters/degrees of freedom) So how useful is a detuned model that uses old physics? Why is this being seen as some sort of a breakthrough?

    Email 1047, Briffa, 2005

    We had to remove the reference to “700 years in France” as I am not sure what this is , and it is not in the text anyway. The use of “likely” , “very likely” and my additional fudge word “unusual” are all carefully chosen where used.

    Email 723, Elaine Barrow, UEA, 1997

    Either the scale needs adjusting, or we need to fudge the figures…

    Briffa_sep98 code

    2.6,2.6,2.6]*0.75 ; fudge factor
    if n_elements(yrloc) ne n_elements(valadj) then message,’Oooops!’

    “Our science is solid and it proves unequivocally that the world is warming and that this warming is due to human activities.” – WMO Deputy Secretary-General Jerry Lengoasa

  21. Richard C (NZ) on 01/12/2011 at 6:38 pm said:

    Great article by Anthony Cox at The Drum (surprisingly, as considerable Borax):-

    Climategate 2: A consensus emerges

    Read about Tony Cox here:-

    Anthony Cox is a lawyer and secretary of The Climate Sceptics, he has degrees in law and climatology

  22. Richard C (NZ) on 03/12/2011 at 7:19 am said:

    Ed Cook says that Trenberth “is extremely defensive and combative when ever criticized about anything because he figures that he is smarter than everyone else and virtually infallible”

    ClimateGate FOIA grepper! – Email 2035

    do know that Trenberth, [Dai’s] co-author, is extremely defensive and combative when ever criticized about anything because he figures that he is smarter than everyone else and virtually infallible. [Ed Cook]

    Keith [Briffa] indicated that you discovered a computational error in Dai’s program that produced unusually extreme PDSI values in some cases. (Has Dai and that miserable prat Trenberth been told about this? As you might tell, I have genuine dislike for that arrogant Kiwi) [Ed Cook]

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Post Navigation